For Sam Rohrer, the debate on same-sex marriage comes down to an unwavering Biblical outlook on the world.

Sam Rohrer, president, Pennsylvania Pastors Network Patriot-News file photo, 2010 Rohrer, a former nine-term Republican state representative and now president of the Pennsylvania Pastors Network, believes political leaders who support gay marriage are shirking a sworn duty to uphold Gods moral and natural law.

The concept of what is important and what is to be protected by government arises from the clear concept that those rights and standards and values emanate from God, not government, Rohrer said. Governments responsibility is to protect those rights.

The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments on two cases, one challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the other, Californias Proposition 8. Same-sex marriage is illegal under both laws.

Rohrer, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010, said that as the high courts nine justices consider their ruling, they should take into account their pledge to uphold, what he said, are the God-given rights in the U.S. Constitution.

The question is is marriage something that has origination in a Biblical position or from God himself? Rohrer said. The answer is obviously 1,000 percent yes. Thats where it came from. That is the concept of marriage, the idea that there is one man, one woman was Gods model from the beginning. What civilizations have done is either protected, supported or defended that model or worked against it. You cannot point to any civilization that has diluted that standard and found a long history there after. Communities are made up of strong families.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government of a redress of grievances.

They weren't thinking of any one religion predominating in the United States.

I wish they would rail against divorce and premarital sex wit just half the fervor they reserve for the gays. The decline in the sanctity of marriage didn’t start with the gays, they are just finishing it.

I would be satisfied if the Court were, for a change, to uphold American law. Regarding the re definition of marriage, I am reminded of a remark by Lincoln on the definition of things: How many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.,”

Bible? Sure. In your parish or congregation. But in the public forum, I think the case for marriage should be argued in terms of Natural Law.

(Note: Natural Law doesn't mean "what feels natural to me," or "what comes naturally to the goats and the bonobos," but rather "what can be defended by a reasonable appeal to human nature --- with respect the flourishing of the person, the family, and society.")

It's not that the Bible should be ruled "out of bounds" --- after all, Biblical argument enlightens and motivates lots of people. But a good case can be made that the same Wisdom who wrote Biblical Law, wrote Natural Law: the author of our Scripture is also the author of our Nature.

If this is so--- and in my judgment, it is -- -then a focus on Natural Law does not imply any detriment to God. It just means you're framing your approach to appeal to those who do not share our Holy Writ, but who do indeed share our human nature.

An adequate --- no, a compelling --- argument can be made against the deconstruction of sex, gender, and marriage which is both the cause and the outcome of "gay marriage." Centrally, it is important to human flourishing that children have a "tie that binds" to their natural mother and father. Every child needs this for a full sense of identity and nurture; when any child does not have it, society recognizes that as a sad state of affairs, a shortfall, an injustice and quite possibly a tragedy.

Marriage and family are ultimately based on children's needs and rights, not adults' feelings and desires.

Natural Law should carry this argument --- if anyone takes the time to think it through.

Any effort to chase the Bible — the foundation of all of out laws and our very civilization — our of “the public forum” is to be fought by all patriots. This is a Christian nation and anybody who will not discuss things in that context is a liberal and thus not worth my time. Don’t like laws of Christianity? Then we do not need you in the United States.

I wrote: "It's not that the Bible should be ruled "out of bounds" ...a focus on Natural Law does not imply any detriment to God. It just means you're framing your approach to appeal to those who do not share our Holy Writ, but who do indeed share our human nature."

Look, a big majority of the people in the USA are self-identified Christians. If all of them upheld man/woman marriage exclusively, there would be no gay deconstruction of marriage to worry about. Even if all Catholics (23% of the population) upheld true marriage and fought all challenges with uncompromising resistance, the LGBT agenda would be a political dead letter.

But the fact is that a great many of our fellow Christians are neither educated to know, or mobilized to defend, Christian truth.

So, Bible-preachers, get on the job!

AND the fact remains that there are many constituencies in the USA which are NOT Christian, but who can understand the Natural Law argument against the LGBT agenda: that it deconstructs sex, gender, marriage and family, and that that is NOT good for society.

Children cannot develop normally in a social environment (backed up by law) which upholds and enables sexual disorder on a mass scale.

We need Jews and agnostics, atheists, seculars, Sikhs and "none of the above" to become our allies in the fight against the LGBT agenda. A Natural Law perspective is one everyone can undersand, regardless of creed, to the extent that they have any understanding of their own human nature. And this has only increased my love and respect for God, the Author of both Scripture and Nature.

There is no religious neutrality. EVERY government and set of laws reflects a religious point of view. Ours was founded on Christianity. It should reflect a Christian worldview without apology and without feeling the need to dumb it down in the name of false ideals of “diversity.” We don’t need a philosophy that agnostics, atheists and seculars can sign on to. They live in a Christian nation and if they can’t accept that, they can leave. They can believe what they want, but they don’t get to re-define America.

Natural Law is not dumbed-down law. It was established by our Creator, just as Scriptural Law was. I apologize to no one for calling to build public policy om a firm foundation of Natural Law -— something Christians should appreciate, understand and respect more than anyone else, since we know and love Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Man.

20
posted on 04/14/2013 1:37:33 PM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
(" If they refuse to listen even to the Church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.